Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 569 of 1997. Case: Radhey Shyam Pandey son of Shri Kailash Pati Pandey, resident of village Papaur, Police Station Pachrukhi, District-Siwan Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.. High Court of Patna (India)

Case NumberCivil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 569 of 1997
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. Siya Ram Shahi and Mr. Ram Ganesh, Advs. And For Respondents: Mr. Shatrughna Pandey, Adv.
JudgesChakradhari Sharan Singh, J.
IssueService Law
Judgement DateNovember 02, 2012
CourtHigh Court of Patna (India)

Judgment:

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.

1. Heard Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shatrughna Pandey learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel-23 on behalf of State of Bihar and other official Respondents and learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 6, the Union of India. While posted as Assistant Engineer in Tubewell Division, Siwan, under the Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, the petitioner was detained on 22.08.1976 under Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as 'MISA') on the allegation of his association with Chhatra Sangharsh Samiti and Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh. He represented before the Central Government against his detention. It is stated in the writ petition that the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India sent a communication dated 23.11.1976 to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, to the following effect:-

Radhey Shyam Pandey was detained under 'MISA' on 22.08.1976 as the D.M. Siwan found his activities prejudicial to the security of the state and maintenance of public order. After his appointment as an assistant engineer in the Tubewell Division, Siwan, Radhey Shyam Pandey developed some differences with the senior colleagues, namely, Bharat Singh, Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division, Siwan and D.K. Yadava, S.D.O. of the same Division over the issue of passing a bill of a contractor, who had allegedly bribed the above mentioned Executive Engineer. The Departmental colleagues pressed upon Radhey Shyam Pandey not to take this issue, but the latter did not budge under their pressure. Radhey Shyam Pandey is an out-spoken man in the habit of sending complaints to VIPs regarding the bunglings of his own departmental officers. He took up the issue of alleged bungling of Rs. 40 lakhs by officials of his department. He sent information alleging misappropriation to the concerned high officials of the State Govt. and demanded an enquiry into the affairs of the Tubewell Division, Siwan. This brought him to the adverse notice of his department and he was suspended for some time. Pandey, therefore, went to Delhi and sat on Dharna in front of the Rashtrapati Bhavan demanding justice. It is reported that the senior officers at Delhi assured him to look into the matter and he was thereafter reinstated. His reinstatement created anxiety among the corrupt officials of his department, who considered him a trouble maker. They stared pulling strings and finally succeeded in winning over the D.M., who issued orders for a detention of Shri Pandey. It would, therefore, appear that the detention of Shri Radhe Shyam Pandey was not bonafide.

2. The allegation of the petitioner is that in spite of such communication he was not released and he thus remained detained up to March, 21, 1977 and only after 'Emergency' was lifted he was released on March 22, 1977. His further plea is that "Shah Commission" was constituted to enquire into the excesses committed during the period of Emergency. The Shah commission also took into account the fact that petitioner continued in detention up to March 21, 1977 despite the communication dated 23.11.1976 of the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.

3. In the year 1978, the petitioner approached the Commissioner, Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar for adequate compensation on the ground that his detention was illegal and mala fide.

4. The plea is that Irrigation Department had agreed for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 50, 000/- (rupees fifty thousand) for such illegal detention subject to concurrence of the Home Affairs Department. The Home Affairs Department also, is said to have given its concurrence but subject to concurrence by the Finance Department. The file, according to the petitioner, kept on moving from 1978 to 1992 when finally the Additional Commissioner, Finance Department passed an order on 14.12.1992 (Annexure-3) that if the petitioner felt that any compensation was due, he might approach the competent Court, if so advised. The Additional Commissioner, Finance Department, in the said order dated 14.12.1992 (Annexure-3) recorded that it was not possible for the Government to adjudicate as to the agony, if any, reason thereof and the compensation amount. On 24.09.1993, the petitioner filed a representation to the Additional Commissioner, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, requesting him to serve a copy of the order about which he had learnt unofficially. Thereafter, vide letter dated 03.12.1993 (Annexure-4), the Additional Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar communicated that his claim for compensation had been rejected.

5. The further plea of the petitioner is that he sought permission vide his letter dated 25.04.1995 (Annexure-5) from the Special Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT